CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones

Scope Of Review Is Narrow, And It Is Allowed Only On Specific Grounds: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India has upheld its decision on review petitions, highlighting the limited scope of the review process. The judgment, delivered by Bench BELA M. TRIVEDI, J. On October 31, 2023, reaffirmed the principles governing the review of judgments in the country.

The Court observed that the power to review judgments is conferred by Article 137 of the Constitution of India, but it is subject to specific laws and rules, including the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, and Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. The review process is intended to correct manifest errors and not to reargue the case.

Supreme Court Stated that the , “The scope of review is narrow, and it is allowed only on specific grounds, such as the existence of an error apparent on the face of the record.” The Court emphasized that a co-ordinate Bench cannot comment on the judgment of another co-ordinate Bench of equal strength, and subsequent decisions of co-ordinate or larger Benches cannot, by themselves, be grounds for review.

The judgment in question pertained to review petitions filed by parties aggrieved by a common judgment and order dated September 6, 2022, in Civil Appeal No. 1661 of 2020 and Civil Appeal No. 2568 of 2020. The Review Petitioners failed to establish an error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned judgment, which had meticulously considered the relevant provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and the Waterfall mechanism under Section 53.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s ruling reaffirms the limited scope of the review process and emphasizes that a review can only be sought on specific grounds related to errors in the judgment. This decision serves as an important precedent for future review petitions in the country.

Date of Decision: 31 October 2023

SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL VS STATE TAX OFFICER (1) & ANR.   

Latest Legal News